Charles,
Yes any conceptual system is only primary in particular social
environments. INdividualism is primary under capitalism and that's why
Vygotsky's marxism has been denigrated. Valsiner & Van der Veer, in their
new book, The Social Mind, go so far as to say that "it SEEMS that Vygotsky
was influenced by Marxism..." They refuse to acknowledge Vyg.'s passionate
belief in Marxism and his insistence that any good psychology will be a
marxist psychology.
Even natural science paradigms are only primary in particular social
environments. E.g., conceptual paradigms like evolutionary theory, the
atomic theory of matter, etc. are only accepted in particular societies. Of
course, they may be very accurate, but they are still inspired by a cultural
weltanschauung.
Regards, Carl
-- Carl Ratner, Ph.D. cr2@humboldt1.com http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2P.O.B. 1294 Trinidad, CA 95570 USA
> From: Charles Nelson <c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu> > Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:25:55 -0700 > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Re: Leontiev > Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:21:04 -0700 (PDT) > > Carl, > > That makes a lot of sense. Still, I wonder, Is one conceptual system > always primary? Can context/environment/time influence the > primariness of a conceptual system? > > Charles Nelson > >> IN response to Charles Nelson's question about how we tie diverse viewpoints >> together: >> I think that one has to decide on the essential concepts/elements of a >> viable cultural psychological approach. These need to be logically coherent >> among themselves. All the related facets of the approach should be logically >> coherent as well. I think this is the essence of scientific thinking. >> Einstein explained this in great detail. He firmly believed in identifying a >> small core of essential principles that underlie all phenomena. In >> developing a cultural psychology, IF we agree w. Marx & Leontiev that the >> social organization of activities is basic to psychological phenomena, and >> that the social relations of production are the most impt. activity within a >> social system, then all of our concepts about self, agency, personality, >> emotions, cognition, mental illness, etc. would have to construe these as >> originating in, bearing the characteristics of, and functioning to >> recapitulate the social organization of activities, and especially of >> economic activity. Any concepts about psychological change would also have >> to be related to concepts of social change. >> These, of course, are all daunting questions. But I believe that this is >> the general approach that cultural psychs. need to explore. It would >> comprise a logically coherent conceptual system. I don't think that progress >> will be made by trying to combine antithetical conceptual viewpoints such as >> marxism + individualism + Freudianism. That's why I believe it is impt. to >> distinguish conceptual systems, decide which is primary, and then extract >> elements of other systems that can be logically integrated with the basic >> one. >> Does this make sense? >> Carl >> -- >> Carl Ratner, Ph.D. >> cr2@humboldt1.com >> http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2 >> >> P.O.B. 1294 >> Trinidad, CA 95570 >> USA > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:03 PDT